Nothing you've said to me states that you took all of those things into consideration, nor did I get that impression, but whatever, if you say so.
Then you didn't read what I said. I'll bold it out for you:
Sony doing this opens up the other platforms to 60 million more users which is a huge benefit to the other platforms and gives one less reason for someone to move into the PlayStation eco system.
Before you throw out, but they could lose people to as a result, they must feel that they'll gain more people jumping in over the number of people they'll lose from this business decision.
You clearly did not read what I said.
You are still greatly overstating what Sony stands to lose by agreeing to crossplay. People having so very slightly less of a reason to get a PS4 is such a nebulous idea that you have no possible way of quantifying. Given content parity, there is no substantial reason to choose one platform over another. Not allowing content parity across platforms for games actively gives the consumer an incentive to not choose whichever platform that's getting the short end of the stick. You seem to be ignoring, or at the very least not giving it as much weight as it deserves.
Man, you need not look any further than this very forum to find numerous people who weigh the online user community as part of their decision. Nowhere did I say all things were equal, but to discount that this has any ramification on their decision is flat out wrong. We know content parity is definitely something of a factor as we see DLC and other exclusive content being negotiated all the time. So the question then becomes how big of a factor is cross play to most people? How many people are even aware right now? How many will revolt as a result? All these factors come into play with weighing the decision of to allow or not allow. I'm not discounting any of that. I'm Sony has probably come to the conclusion that it's a non factor. I keep pointing out The Artisan since he's one of the more vocal people here who is annoyed by this, but even he's not leaving the PS4 and is still giving Sony money. He says Sony has the rest of the generation to change their mind. So what incentive is it for Sony to push forward on this now if people are just going to keep giving them money and not revolt anyway? Sony's position makes it harder for most people to give it which in turn gives people on the outside even more incentive to jump in. You still haven't answered, if Sony isn't doing this to protect their interests and that they feel they have more to gain than lose by sitting tight with the option to change their mind with a full 180 down the line in their own timeline, then why the hell are they doing it? Spite? What seems more logical to you between those two answers? In fact, give me a more logical reason why they're sitting tight.
As far as that last bit goes, the critical analysis of the situation you're providing only goes so deep, to the simple fact that the advantage exists at all. It's a narrative that doesn't take into consideration how much actual value that advantage holds, or whether or not it is valuable enough to be worth maintaining at all. Not all advantages are equal, existing isn't enough, nor is it something that requires critical thinking to come to terms with. Providing higher quality products that do not lack content compared to the same product on another platform, that bolster the exclusive content and marketing deals that you already heavily invest in that, which sum up to a greater package than the ones offered by your competitors, is the actual significant advantage they hold, and disallowing crossplay spits in the face of that. Sure, you have more users than the other consoles at a base level, but the most vocal portion of that userbase is now upset that you're preventing them from getting the content they desire. You're giving them a reason to go elsewhere when they could've just given all of their money to you exclusively. These decisions don't exist in a vacuum, only looking at one advantage or disadvantage existing at all without any context as to why it exists or what you have to lose by upholding that decision is worthless.
Often the most vocal people are in the minority though. It's only when that vocal minority no longer becomes a minority is when companies start to listen. So it doesn't matter that the vocal minority is out there until it becomes a problem for Sony. I agree, nothing exists in a vacuum and every decision has gains and losses. There is rarely something that gives you 100% results one way or another. Right now when you add all those factors together, Sony feels they have more to gain than lose by not allowing cross play. It's that simple. I won't dispute that offering cross play offers a better quality product to the consumer, but that better product doesn't always net more sales, nor does it mean Sony will gain from it since there are other factors involved.
We know they're fine with PC online gaming. We know they don't really factor in PC as competition because exclusivity almost never applies to the PC version and always does to the console one. Reading between the lines, the clear problem is opening up by allowing Microsoft and the Xbox platform to share their userbase with them. There are plenty of other possible reasons why this could be. Maybe there's a technical reason, I doubt it but it's possible, maybe there's a security issue, again I doubt it but possible, but if it's not either of those two issues, it has to be opening up their user base to the Xbox market. If it's not their user base, then what is it? If it is their user base, then clearly they feel it's a huge asset that they don't want to give up at the moment.
If I'm wrong, then what do you think
IS Sony's reason for not allowing it to happen?
They just have to eat shit on a gimped version of Minecraft. This is Microsoft's $2.5B middle finger wag in effect.